Honble PRASAD, J. – These two appeals are against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Barmer dated May 19, 1990, whereby awards have been passed for Rs. 62,000/- in the case of Rahima & Rs. 52,000/-. In Kantas case. (2) These two appeals arises out of the same subject matter relating to the same incident and similar identical questions are involved therefore, they are being decided together. (3). Both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Co. and counsel for the Insurance Co. Shri A.R. Mehta has urged that in these two claim petitions, two persons namely Kanta & Mallom were travelling in Truck No. GRN 3416 out of them Mallom died and Kanta was injured, therefore, the claims have been filed for their respective damages. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Co., both these were travelling as gratuitous passengers and therefore, no liability fall on the head of the Insurance Co. because Insurance Co is not liable for carrying gratuitous passengers in a truck. In this regard issue No.4 was framed by the Tribunal and the burden of proving Issue No. 4 was on the defendant/appellant. Defendant/appellant failed to adduce any evidence which could show that both these persons were gratuitous passengers, and, therefore, finding on Issue No.4 has gone against the defendant appellant. Since the burden was on the defendant (the Insurance Co. which is the defendant in the claim) who has failed to adduce any evidence to prove Issue No.4, now cannot be permitted to agitate this aspect of the matter that the two persons who suffered in the accident were travelling as gratuitous passengers. (4). Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents placed reliance on a decision of this Court in 1989 U.I.I. Co. vs. Purma Ram & Ors., wherein this Court has taken the view that when the particular party had the burden of proof of a par- ticular issue and has failed to adduce evidence, then the issue is liable to be decided against that party. I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Court. (5). The counsel for the Insurance Co. further drew my attention to the fact that notwithstanding with the evidence in question, the facts on record can be looked for determination of this issue. I am afraid, this argument is not available to the Insurance Co. because in appeal, Insurance Co. (5). The counsel for the Insurance Co. further drew my attention to the fact that notwithstanding with the evidence in question, the facts on record can be looked for determination of this issue. I am afraid, this argument is not available to the Insurance Co. because in appeal, Insurance Co. can raise only those defences which are available under the Statute. On this aspect of the matter, Insurance Co. cannot ask this Court to permit production of any evidence and respen the case at its instance for a defence which is not available to it, and, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. is not liable to be sustained. (6). In the result, findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 4 are affirmed. As regards the other two arguments, the learned counsel for the Insurance Co. halfheartedly asserted that the liability of the Insurance Co. is not beyond Rs. 15,000/- and no award could be passed beyond that amount. (7). Suffice it to say that the statutes has amended after 1982 and the liability of the Insurance Co. is more than 15,000/- i.e. 1 lakh 50,000 in case of a truck and, therefore, the argument of limited liability is not available to the Insurance co. The only infirmity of the award is that in so many words, it is not mentioned that the owner is also liable. In exercise of the powers conferred 041 rule 33 of the C.P.C. the award can be corrected and the same is so done. The award is liable to be rea- lised against both owner & Insurance Co. Both of them are jointly and severely liable for the compensation awarded against them. In the case or Kanta, the cross-objection has been filed by the counsel for the respondent but I am not inclined to entertain the cross- examination to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal as the amount is neither unreasonable nor highly excessive and, there- fore, in the result both the appeals and the cross-objection in the appeal of Kanta are rejected as regards the compensation. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal in Kantas case is on the lower side. 6 per cent interest as awarded by the tribunal appears to be unreasonable. The rate of interest is enhanced to 12 per cent from the date of application in the case of Kanta. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal in Kantas case is on the lower side. 6 per cent interest as awarded by the tribunal appears to be unreasonable. The rate of interest is enhanced to 12 per cent from the date of application in the case of Kanta. The award passed by the tribunal in modified to the extent as indicated above. (8). Both the appeals are dismissed and the award in the case of Kanta is modified to the extend of enhanced the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 12 per cent from the date of application. No order as to costs.